Mu v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Mu v. Gonzales

131 F. App'x 928

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 18, 2005

Docket04-2425

StatusUnpublished

This text of 131 F. App'x 928 (Mu v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mu v. Gonzales, 131 F. App'x 928 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Wen Cai Mu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mu contends that his motion to reconsider provided the Board with new legal arguments. See Matter of Cema, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 405 n. 2 (BIA 1991) (“A motion to reconsider ‘is a request that the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked, while [a] motion to reopen is usually based upon new evidence or a change in factual circumstances.’ ”).

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). A motion to reconsider asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the. prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision and conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mu’s motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma *929 terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Wen Cai Mu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mu contends that his motion to reconsider provided the Board with new legal arguments. See Matter of Cema, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 405 n. 2 (BIA 1991) (“A motion to reconsider ‘is a request that the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked, while [a] motion to reopen is usually based upon new evidence or a change in factual circumstances.’ ”).

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). A motion to reconsider asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the. prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision and conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mu’s motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma *929 terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. App'x 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mu-v-gonzales-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack